[110543] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Is Star Trek: Discovery a new canon category?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (nIqolay Q)
Fri Aug 11 09:20:13 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
In-Reply-To: <100394ca-7611-6cf9-e2da-639f4908df8c@gmx.de>
From: nIqolay Q <niqolay0@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 09:20:09 -0400
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
--===============0965683141583217863==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113f830623fd3e05567a2c72"
--001a113f830623fd3e05567a2c72
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 1:51 AM, Lieven <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
> Am 11.08.2017 um 04:28 schrieb nIqolay Q:
>
>> One of the major differences between Discovery and Klingon Hamlet is that
>> Discovery is going to be Actual Star Trek Canon.
>>
>
> There's the point: it's "Star Trek" canon, but still not pour Okrandian
> canon. Remember all the gibberish we'se seen on Deep Space nine? That
> certainly is canon, but wo don't even understand a word from it.
>
The argument I'm making is that the reason we don't understand the
gibberish from DS9 and elsewhere is because it is supposed to be considered
canonically *no' Hol*, even the stuff that (coincidentally, I'm sure)
sounds like someone doing a bad phonetic reading of modern Klingon words.
The section on *no' Hol* (KGT p. 11-14) is written as if it's trying to
reassure the reader that even if a Klingon says something that sounds like
gibberish, it's actually perfectly acceptible as a contemporary use of
ancient language. Okrand doesn't mention many examples of TV show gibberish
specifically (though *mova' 'aqI' ruStaq* (KGT p. 13) is a line from
"Looking For Par'Mach in All The Wrong Places" (DS9)), but it seems clear
to me in retrospect that the digression on *no' Hol *was intended as a way
to include all the TV gibberish in the canonical linguistic history without
having to really make sense of it. Which is why I said earlier that all the
stuff we've seen on TV and film has been incorporated into canonical
Klingon, even if just as a more ancient form of the language.
--001a113f830623fd3e05567a2c72
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On F=
ri, Aug 11, 2017 at 1:51 AM, Lieven <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto=
:levinius@gmx.de" target=3D"_blank">levinius@gmx.de</a>></span> wrote:<b=
r><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;borde=
r-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D"gmail-">=
Am 11.08.2017 um 04:28 schrieb nIqolay Q:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-=
left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
One of the major differences between Discovery and Klingon Hamlet is that D=
iscovery is going to be Actual Star Trek Canon.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></span>
There's the point: it's "Star Trek" canon, but still not =
pour Okrandian canon. Remember all the gibberish we'se seen on Deep Spa=
ce nine? That certainly is canon, but wo don't even understand a word f=
rom it.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div style=3D"transition: transform =
1s ease 0s;">The argument I'm making is that the reason we don't un=
derstand the gibberish from DS9 and elsewhere is<i> </i>because it is suppo=
sed to be considered canonically <b>no' Hol</b>, even the stuff that (c=
oincidentally, I'm sure) sounds like someone doing a bad phonetic readi=
ng of modern Klingon words. The section on <b>no' Hol</b> (KGT p. 11-14=
) is written as if it's trying
to reassure the reader that even if a Klingon says something that=20
sounds like gibberish, it's actually perfectly acceptible as a=20
contemporary use of ancient language. Okrand doesn't mention many examp=
les of TV show gibberish specifically (though <b style=3D"transition: trans=
form 1s ease 0s;">mova' 'aqI' ruStaq</b> (KGT p. 13) is a line =
from "Looking For Par'Mach in All The Wrong Places" (DS9)), b=
ut it seems clear to me in retrospect that the digression on <b>no' Hol=
<i> </i></b>was intended as a way to include all the TV gibberish in the ca=
nonical linguistic history without having to really make sense of it. Which=
is why I said earlier that all the stuff we've seen on TV and film has=
been incorporated into canonical Klingon, even if just as a more ancient f=
orm of the language.<br></div><div><br><br></div><div><br><i><br></i>=C2=A0=
<br></div></div></div></div>
--001a113f830623fd3e05567a2c72--
--===============0965683141583217863==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
--===============0965683141583217863==--
